This Checklist serves as an appendix to the Implementing Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. It lists all of the guidelines and success criteria from ATAG 2.0 in a checkable list. For many readers, the Checklist
provides a quick reference and overview to the information in ATAG 2.0.

This list may be used to review an authoring tool for accessibility. For each guideline, indicate whether the success criteria has been satisfied, has not been satisfied, or is not applicable.

Developer control: The Part A success criteria only apply to the authoring tool user interface as it is provided by the developer. They do not apply to any subsequent modifications by parties other than the authoring tool developer (e.g., user modifications of default settings, third-party plug-ins).

Accessibility of features provided to meet Part A: The Part
A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part A (e.g., documentation, search functions). The only exemption is for preview features,
as long as they meet the relevant success criteria in Guideline A.3.7. Previews are treated differently than editing-views because all authors, including those with disabilities, benefit when preview features accurately reflect the functionality of user
agents that are actually in use by end users.

Unrecognizable content: When success criteria require authoring tools to treat web content according to semantic criteria, the success criteria do not apply when these semantics are missing (e.g., text that describes an image is only considered to be a text alternative when this role is encoded within markup).

For PART B: Support the production of accessible content:

Developer control: The Part B success criteria only apply to the authoring tool as it is provided by the developer. This does not include subsequent modifications by parties other than the authoring tool developer (e.g., third-party plug-ins, user-defined templates, user modifications of default settings).

Authoring systems: As per the ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool, several software tools (identified in any conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B (e.g., an authoring tool could make use of a third-party software accessibility checking tool).

Accessibility of features provided to meet Part B: The Part
A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features that must be present to meet the success criteria in Part B (e.g., checking tools, repair tools, tutorials, documentation).

Multiple authoring roles: Some authoring tools include multiple author roles, each with different views and content editing permissions (e.g., a content management system may separate the roles of designers, content authors, and quality assurers). In these cases, the Part B success criteria apply to the authoring tool as a whole, not to the view provided to any particular authoring role. Accessible content support features should be made available to any authoring role where it would be useful.

Unrecognizable content: When success criteria require authoring tools to treat web content according to semantic criteria, the success criteria do not apply when these semantics are missing (e.g., text that describes an image is only considered to be a text alternative when this role is encoded within markup).

Guidelines and Success Criteria

Under each guideline there are success criteria that describe specifically what must be achieved in order to conform. They are similar to the "checkpoints" in ATAG 1.0. Each success criterion is written as a statement that will be either true or false when a specific authoring tool is tested against it.

All ATAG 2.0 success criteria are written to be testable. While some can be tested by software, others require human testers for part or all of the test.

A.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum):

All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints. (Level A)

Note 1: Keyboard interfaces are programmatic services provided by many platforms that allow operation in a device independent manner. This success criterion does not imply the presence of a hardware keyboard.

Note 2: The path exception relates to the underlying function, not the input technique. For example, if using handwriting to enter text, the input technique (handwriting) requires path-dependent input, but the underlying function (text input) does not. The path exception encompasses other input variables that are continuously sampled from pointing devices, including pressure, speed, and angle.

Note 3: This success criterion does not forbid and should not discourage other input methods (e.g., mouse, touch) in addition to keyboard operation.

A.3.1.2 No Keyboard Traps:

If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using a keyboard interface, then focus can be moved away from that component using only a keyboard interface, and, if it requires more than unmodified arrow or tab keys or other standard exit methods, authors are advised of the method for moving focus away. (Level A)

A.3.2.1 Auto-Save (Minimum):

If the authoring tool includes authoring session time limits, then the authoring tool can be set to automatically save web content edits made using the authoring tool before the session time limits are reached. (Level A)

A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable:

If a time limit is set by the authoring tool, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A)

(a) Turn Off:Authors are allowed to turn off the time limit before encountering it; or

(b) Adjust: Authors are allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting; or

(c) Extend: Authors are warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e.g., "press the space bar"), and authors are allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or

(d) Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (e.g., a collaborative authoring system), and no alternative to the time limit is possible; or

(e) Essential Exception: The time limit is essential and extending it would invalidate the activity; or

A.3.4.2 Navigate by Programmatic Relationships:

Note: Depending on the web content technology and the nature of the authoring tool, relationships may include, but are not limited to, element nesting, headings, labeling, programmatic definitions, and ID relationships.

B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG):

If the authoring tool provides restructuring transformations or re-coding transformations, and if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the output, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

Note 2: This success criteria only applies when the output technology is "included" for conformance.

B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool (WCAG):

If the authoring tool supports copy and paste of structured content, then any accessibility information (WCAG) in the copied content is preserved when the authoring tool is both the source and destination of the copy-paste. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

Note: This success criteria only applies when the output technology is "included" for conformance.

PRINCIPLE B.2: Authors must be supported in producing accessible content

-

-

-

Guideline B.2.1: Ensure accessible content production is possible.

-

-

-

B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG):

If the authoring tool places restrictions on the web content that authors can specify, then those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

(a) Author Control:Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the suggested text alternatives prior to insertion; and

(b) Relevant Sources: The suggested text alternatives are only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e.g., suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).

B.2.5.1 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism:

If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true: (Level AA)

(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known); and

B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG):

If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content in such a way that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion can be violated, then accessibility checking for that success criterion is provided (e.g., an HTML authoring tool that inserts images should check for alternative text; a video authoring tool with the ability to edit text tracks should check for captions). (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

Note: Depending on the nature of the editing-view and the scope of the potential web content accessibility problem (WCAG), identification might involve highlighting elements or renderings of elements, displaying line numbers, or providing instructions.

B.3.1.4 Status Report:

If the authoring tool provides checks, then authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. (Level AA)

Note: The format of the accessibility status report is not specified and they might include a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.0 conformance level, etc..